Labour confused and arguing among themselves over VAT on school fees

[Another76543]

This policy is getting more ridiculous by the day.

We have the shadow Attorney General who doesn’t understand the basic concept that the VAT position and charitable status are entirely separate issues. She also doesn’t understand that it’s parents and not schools who will pay the charge.

“the question is, is it appropriate in these circumstances for schools, such as in Eton or Winchester or whatever, to be seen as a charity and that, therefore, they should not be paying VAT on the huge fees”

This statement is factually incorrect on two things.

She also seems to think that any money raised will be spent on breakfast for children. The potential money has already been allocated to new teachers. They seem to think they can spend the same money twice.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/emily-thornberry-labour-institute-for-fiscal-studies-education-secretary-winchester-b2559439.html

The Party are also now fighting among themselves over this proposal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/emily-thornberry-bridget-phillipson-labour-david-lynch-london-b2559684.html#

“sign of divisions within Sir Keir Starmer’s party over the policy”

Well that's a shame but obviously it isn't compulsory. Personally I enjoy it. I was educated at boarding school and I love going in to our big buzzy state secondary, it takes me back to school days and I thrive on the energy of the kids I meet. I only volunteer to suit my timetable but I always leave happier than I arrive.
When I think forward to my own future grandchildren (who I will not be able to afford to help by funding school fees) I hope that my own small part has helped create a better state system and that it is the start of happy lives for them.

"As repeatedly pointed out, if 94% or parents didn't make the change happen, it's a bit self insulting to think that 1.5% (assuming that 25% of PS kids will move to state) will make it"

This is easy to address. Look at the attention this issue is getting in comparison to the struggles of the state system in a general election debate.

Look at the number of threads started here on MN.

This particular parent group is both highly vocal and due to their positions in society highly influential.

Headteachers, Union leaders and teachers have been crying out for a decade or more about issues in state schools. The level of attention it gets is nowhere near the same.

Well Labour have finally acknowledged that it will impact on the state system and there may be larger class sizes.

So all the parents rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of this being introduced may not being so happy when their child is in a class of 35 and all the VAT money is being spent on new nurseries.

I would love to see Labour drop this policy. THEN they will get my vote. Otherwise this is a big red flag that Labour will bring in policies that punish those of us already paying shedloads of tax. I don’t believe it is right to tax education in principle.

Duke - Financial resources for international students are limited.
Vanderbilt - Vanderbilt University will offer renewable need-based financial aid to a limited number of international freshman undergraduate applicants.

Where are you getting your information?

I'm continuing to back up my assertion that the Ivies (and MIT) are much more likely to offer need-blind admissions to international students than the next tier. However, I would agree that the next tier are much more likely to offer merit-based scholarships than the top tier.

Comments about Ivies and funding should take into account that, statistically, it's harder to get a place than at Oxbridge + Imperial.

Remind me which governments also abolished Direct Grants and Assisted Places?

"Headteachers, Union leaders and teachers have been crying out for a decade or more about issues in state schools. The level of attention it gets is nowhere near the same."

So if all it takes is more engaged, vocal parents, why (and let's have you actually answer the question) do you think the rich parents in state schools today don't get the issues in state schools solved?

As far as I could see, the number of schools offering significant numbers of bursaries is rather small. Christ's hospital offers a huge number. Latymer upper were also pushing very hard to get the number to 25% but hadn't quite made it. There are probably a couple of dozen old/rich schools that can afford to. After that, it's token numbers.
In the schools closest to me, bursary places comprise around 2% of available places (i..e a couple per year group).

@user149799568

The info on Duke came from one of their representatives, they consider the application first and then the need for aid? They don't give places based on the need for aid, as far as I'm aware being need blind doesn't mean that you'll get aid.

"Comments about Ivies and funding should take into account that, statistically, it's harder to get a place than at Oxbridge + Imperial."

Indeed, even worse once legacy/scholarship/Dean's list and staff's children are considered.

Something like 45% of all white students are Harvard fall into this category.

Also Labour are not making sense on this. One of their representatives commented this week that if students previously headed for private school now go into state schools, it won’t impact class sizes because student numbers are falling. But if student numbers are falling then that and cuts across what Kier Starmer said in the debate about the VAT collected being used for more teachers. ie falling student numbers would naturally help resolve the teacher shortage.

None of this makes sense because Labour’s policy is ideologically driven. That really concerns me.

“Comments about Ivies and funding should take into account that, statistically, it's harder to get a place than at Oxbridge + Imperial.”

I think it depends on how gifted or talented you are. If you are truly exceptional the world is your oyster and there are so many businesses and benefactors willing to sponsor your talents. You can raise them privately if you have a network and a true gift.

If you are a more average Oxbridge 2:1 candidate with middle class parents then yes, easier to stay here.
The US uni system relies on endowments and rich people living cash in their wills. Our unis should be working harder to tap this demographic as well!

Did you expect me to provide the full list?
The issue is that at present bright poor kids can get PS on bursaries. This won't continue with VAT introduced, some smaller schools will close, top ones will become really exclusive

"So if all it takes is more engaged, vocal parents, why (and let's have you actually answer the question) do you think the rich parents in state schools today don't get the issues in state schools solved?"

I think its harder to get media attention on state schools because of the media/political class, far fewer of them state educate their children or came from state education themselves, for one.

I also think there is a far larger concentration of highly motivated and vocal parents who are willing to use connections/influence to make these issues larger and wider debated from the private sector.

I don't think many of the impacts predicted will occur, and really do think most will keep their children in private school for a wide range of reasons.

"statistically, it's harder to get a place than at Oxbridge + Imperial"

UCAS restricts domestic applicants to 5 choices and to at most one of Oxford/Cambridge. There's no such restriction in the US, Hence kids there will apply to 20+ colleges. This inflates the statistics on applicants per place etc. You're comparing apples and oranges.

"There's no such restriction in the US, Hence kids there will apply to 20+ colleges. This inflates the statistics on applicants per place etc. You're comparing apples and oranges."

But there are only 8 Ivies and most students don't apply to all 8 due to the requirements of supplemental essays etc, so it can be comparable.

But house prices are already spiking. Preferred schools catchment areas areas are already becoming tougher and tighter, and their headteachers saying they are becoming less and less effective at providing social mobility. More kids from private prep schools are already taking 11+. Demand for tutoring for 11+ is through the roof.

You might as well "challenge the idea" that there's a war in Ukraine.

As for "challenging the idea" of major savings to taxpayers, you haven't challenged them at all. You've confused per-pupil measures with aggregates, you don't understand fixed and variable costs, you don't get the economic difference between "pupils in existing schools" and "pupils moving schools under forced circumstances".

And you don't know what "exponential" means; it even comes across that you're rather proud to use it in the inaccurate manner of less-educated people saying "literally" to mean "really".

If you were teaching my kids' economics, I'd want my money back. "Literally" everything you write is a howler.

I think there's a large concentration of highly motivated and vocal parents getting a terrific deal in preferred state schools who do absolutely zip for the state system as a whole.

Three of them are, of course, the Starmers, the Reeves, and the Phillipsons.

If the debate shifted to "let's destroy the grammars and bus children around to smash catchment areas" I think you'd find plenty of other parents opposing it.

You're evidently ideologically motivated to assume, like the IFS, that you can predict the behaviour of families. The IFS doesn't mention affordability or YED, the ASI paper is the only one to mention it, yet you prefer to dismiss the latter and adopt the former.

@Aladdinzane · Today 13:07
If there is one thing I haven't done is flung insults.

Really? You don’t think this comment you made to MrChips isn’t insulting?

You might benefit from not making up figures to reach your fantasy targets, but then I'm not as pompous or patronising as you

@MrChips

"But house prices are already spiking"

House prices in the most desirable catchment areas have always been high, and we have had a house price boom in such areas following covid, have you got evidence that they've increased directly in response to this policy?

" More kids from private prep schools are already taking 11+. Demand for tutoring for 11+ is through the roof."

As it has been for years? Demand for 11 plus tutoring/prep schools taking 11 plus has been huge for a long time, there is no indication of a big spike now ?

As for "challenging the idea" of major savings to taxpayers, you haven't challenged them at all.

"You've confused per-pupil measures with aggregates, you don't understand fixed and variable costs, you don't get the economic difference between "pupils in existing schools" and "pupils moving schools under forced circumstances".

You added costs that are not applied per pupil to per pupil spending to reach your figure of 12k, costs. I do understand the difference between pupils existing in schools and pupils moving under forced circumstances and clearly explained how the predicted movement wouldn't cause a steep rise in costs.

"If you were teaching my kids' economics, I'd want my money back. "Literally" everything you write is a howler. "

Thanks, I get great results and send students globally, have done for decades, whilst also managing to write for other institutions and still guest lecture. My students all come back and say how much they learned. However, again, as said, once you start the personal insults you've lost the debate, but you lost it a long time ago.

@Barbadossunset

Did you see the comments he's been making in my direction long before this?

Not flinging insults.

"You added costs that are not applied per pupil to per pupil spending to reach your figure of 12k, costs. "

As I said, you don't know the difference between fixed and variable costs. £8k is variable costs. £12k includes fixed costs. Those are the costs that are not "applied per pupil" but if the numbers moving are large at a local level, it is reasonable to assume they kick in - and unreasonable to assume they don't.

That's why I would speak of the savings to the taxpayer as being £8-12k. If these children weren't in the independent sector, it would cost £8-12k to educate them in the state sector. To any competent economist, this is bread and butter.

@MrChips

"Three of them are, of course, the Starmers, the Reeves, and the Phillipsons."

Yet they are running for government and have campaigned for greater school funding in the past?

I'd agree, there are lots of parents, such the Gove's who sent their children the Blue Coat and Holland Park who get a great deal out of the state system and do nothing in return.

"If the debate shifted to "let's destroy the grammars and bus children around to smash catchment areas"

I'm sure they would, grammars have very similar demographics to private schools in most cases.

"You're evidently ideologically motivated to assume, like the IFS, that you can predict the behaviour of families"

I think a fair amount of assumptions can be made, looking at previous data, looking at the incomes of the majority of those who privately educate their children. Income is certainly a very large determinant of demand for private education, however as the vast majority of private school households are in the top income decile will it make that much of a difference here?

What do you think is the top decile household income cut-off? What is their disposable income after school fees, so that you can assume they'll pay more?

What about those paying full fees in the second and third decile? How many are there? What's their disposable income? How does their lifestyle and workload compare to peers in the state sector?

Or those on bursaries in lower deciles?

Detail, detail. Maybe you're right, just assume the average and be guided by the stereotypes you read in the Guardian. The rich will pay, they always do. That's not economics, it's lazy and ignorant.

Of course I understand fixed and variable costs but this is not the way you presented it.

" but if the numbers moving are large at a local level,"

They just won't be. There won't be large local level moves because private schools have far wider catchments than states, this means that even a relatively large number of students moving will come at a lower cost per head.

"That's why I would speak of the savings to the taxpayer as being £8-12k. If these children weren't in the independent sector, it would cost £8-12k to educate them in the state sector. To any competent economist, this is bread and butter."

Oh do please stop the insults, I'm entirely competent and as said, some of the things you added as per head cost ( DofE R and D) come at 0 opportunity cost per pupil, they would be the same if there were thousands more or thousands less in the system.

"What do you think is the top decile household income cut-off? What is their disposable income after school fees, so that you can assume they'll pay more?"

You might assume that they can on average pay 69 pounds per week more for an education which they regard as a necessity? That they have that kind of cash within flexible discretionary income budgets?

"What about those paying full fees in the second and third decile?"

The UCL study shows that in each income decile except for the top, the proportion of students being educated privately is close to 0. For those outside it, the funding for education mostly comes from household wealth/grandparental help.

"Or those on bursaries in lower deciles?"

The average bursary is about 35% of the fee, and as far as I recall from the top of my head, outside of the top income decile, 4/5 children are not getting financial aid.

"Maybe you're right, just assume the average and be guided by the stereotypes you read in the Guardian. The rich will pay, they always do. That's not economics, it's lazy and ignorant."

It's neither lazy nor ignorant to do what I'm doing nor is it guided by the Guardian.

Keep up the personal attacks.